W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2010

Re: [css3-2d-transforms] Interop: matrix() values e,f <number> or <length>

From: L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2010 17:09:54 -0800
To: Brendan Kenny <bckenny@gmail.com>
Cc: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20101118010954.GA7911@pickering.dbaron.org>
On Wednesday 2010-11-17 17:03 -0800, Brendan Kenny wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 3:36 PM, L. David Baron <dbaron@dbaron.org> wrote:
> > On Wednesday 2010-11-17 22:31 +0000, Sylvain Galineau wrote:
> >> The current CSS3 2D Transforms spec [1] defines the matrix function as taking six
> >> values of type <number>.
> >>
> >> Firefox 4 Beta 7, however, seems to require e and f to be of type <length>. As
> >> these map to the x and y of the translate*() functions, I can understand the
> >> connection. This is, however, the only implementation to do this today.
> >>
> >> I was curious to know whether this was by design.
> >
> > It was.  I proposed changing the spec here:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2009Oct/0360.html
> > and got no response.
> >
> 
> That of course makes sense for the translate function, but I find it
> confusing in the matrix function. Thinking of 2d translations as
> shears in 3d space (or P2), the units are already implicit in the
> space, making the units on e and f into just additional multipliers.

The units are implicit in the space according to what?  As far as I
know, CSS doesn't define pixels as more basic than other units.
Those components of the matrix really do have different dimensions.

-David

-- 
L. David Baron                                 http://dbaron.org/
Mozilla Corporation                       http://www.mozilla.com/
Received on Thursday, 18 November 2010 01:10:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:34 GMT